Watermarks: Evolution of a Watermark
Having covered the basics of watermarks and why they’re important to use in my earlier post My Journey With Photographic Watermarks, I wanted to take you on a journey of how I’ve employed watermarks over the past 10 years. Not only do I plan on digging my old watermarks out of my archive I’ll tell you what I was thinking when I used them and why I decided to change them.
As previously discussed watermarks by definition are ugly, but a sad necessity. As I’ve dug up my old watermarked images I’ve shaken my head more than once in disgust. Disgust because 1) the intent of my photography has been to show beauty and dynamic moments not a watermark and 2) because as I go back in time I realize how horrible some of my watermarks were.
Attribution ANDÂ Branding
I have an extensive marketing background and as such learned early on the importance of “Brand”. Most of the time you never think of brands or branding and thats because over time with repeated exposure brand identity becomes subconscious, as an example a Coca Cola bottle. From the very beginning of my online image sharing efforts brand was a central consideration as much as attribution. Clearly watermarks are critical in providing credit for creative work where credit it is due, but it also provides an opportunity to give viewers something to recognize beyond photographic style… in essence a digital signature. This no doubt will rub fine art photographers the wrong way. For fine art photographers the brand is the work, the style and the vision. I don’t disagree with this, but as an artist no opportunity should go unturned in creating an identifiable brand both for prospective sales and commissioned work. Looking past a watermark as an aspect to communicate ones brand would be a wasted opportunity.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2000-2001
My 2000-2001 photography watermark (above) didn’t last very long as I quickly learned the importance of including a standard copyright statement “©<year> Jim M. Goldstein, All Rights Reserved”. I have to admit I don’t mind this watermark from a style perspective, but it wasn’t enough. The downside was that it wasn’t always clear with a busy background, should have been larger and as discussed missed the standard copyright statement.
Watermark as a Calling Card
Beyond legal statements and providing reason enough to use cool looking fonts, a watermark has the ability to provide a key marketing function… be a calling card. In 1997 Hotmail was sold to Microsoft for $400 million dollars. The reason was the large audience that had been developed. How did Hotmail cultivate rapid user growth? Through “viral marketing” which at the time was a brand new term. Every email sent from Hotmail included their tagline and a URL back to their service home page. These days we take such basic marketing for granted, in fact we’ve learned to filter it as noise. This isn’t always the case though particularly when you’ve relayed something to a viewer that is much more engaging such as photography. While Hotmail proved the concept we’ve later seen YouTube perfect it. At the time YouTube was sold to Google every video had 7 ways it could be sent to someone to be seen. I’m not out to delude you that photographic sales are in the same league as online email or video sharing, but the marketing concepts are applicable. Beyond traditional attribution as to who created the photo a watermark can also be used to point people to a destination to see more work they might enjoy and perhaps even purchase.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2001 for Downloads
In 2001 I decided to experiment and botch the “calling card” or “viral marketing” concept. I released a more intrusive watermark for wallpaper I was making available for sale. Granted I was very wet behind the ears as were most photographers placing work online at the time, but this watermark was just hideous. Looking back I’m glad I faulted on the side of hideousness rather than going too light on my watermark. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that my wallpaper sales never took off. My late 2001 watermark clearly lacked an artistic touch and was far too distracting. What it did do right is provide the standard copyright statement along with my site name and URL. In 2001 my web site was brand new, I knew that people were hot-linking or lifting photographs if they liked them and I wanted to get people back to my web site.
Learning from my previous mistake, that fortunately not many people saw (until now), I released an alternate version for general web viewing (see below). While it was more artful and less intrusive at the time it still rubbed people the wrong way. I stuck with it for a couple of years despite the feedback I received.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2001-2003
Know Your Audience
While the safest assumption to make is that once your photography is online it will be distributed beyond your control and in ways you may never know, there are instances where you need to tailor your presentation (watermark included) to your audience. Not every online audience is going to be uneducated in the ways of copyrights and pirate your photographic work. When I found a small photography forum full of great people that I recognized and respected I scaled back my watermark to the standard copyright statement. I also used the scaled back watermark for an online portfolio site I was using knowing that most viewing my work there would understand the implications of pirating my work.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2003
In some regard this watermark worked just fine for the audience, but it was a step backwards as it related to branding. This basic watermark (magnified so you can see it) was adequate, but was too faint.
Framed Photos
The first time I saw a framed photo online was I was baffled. I felt that the photo should speak for itself. Why rely on a frame? It just seemed cheesy. Over time it grew on me and I could see how attribution, branding and artistic presentation could be blended with it. Â I have to give credit to fellow photographer Patrick Di Fruscia who I first saw with a framed photo online (note he just launched a blog) as it proved to be an influence… in a way I’d never have predicted. Still for many this approach doesn’t sit well, but it has proven to be popular with a growing number of viewers and photographers.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2003-2009
What I’ve grown to like about this approach is the ability to provide a photo title, my name and web site URL in conjunction with a standard copyright statement. The downside to this is that it is rather busy. To be blunt though any watermark style is going to be distracting if your photography isn’t strong and lacks impact. A strong and engaging photo will keep a viewers eye no matter what the watermark.
No Watermark is Perfect
2008 proved to be one of my best years photographically speaking, but it was also a frustrating year. With success came copyright infringers and a lot of aggravation. It is essential that you make your copyright statement visible, so that an infringer cannot say they didn’t see a photo was copyright protected. This is not just preference, but a matter of law in the event you go after someone in a court of law (at least in the U.S.) Â As noted earlier, my preference is no watermark at all. I want my photographs to be front and center, but would you believe I had someone infringe my work in the watermark format exemplified above in the frame and they claimed they were unaware the image was copyright protected? I was told my watermark was not obvious enough yet they removed my over image watermark and cropped away the frame. Below is the infringed version of the photo in question as well as how the original was displayed on Flickr (where the infringer found my work).
 |
 |
| Click to Enlarge | Click to Enlarge |
After this instance of copyright infringement I started overlaying an even larger text watermark over my photos in this framed format (see below).
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2008-2009
Reinvent the Wheel
After being frustrated by the amount of infringement of my photography in 2008 I decided to re-evaluate my watermarking approach. I wanted to learn from past experiences, simplify the effort it took to watermark my photography, utilize the latest tools available to me and develop a watermark design that was refined. In late 2008 I finalized a new watermark design that encapsulated a large copyright symbol, my name and my web site address. In essence blending efforts with attribution, establishing a calling card, clearly identifying legal protections and branding with in a limited footprint.
Jim M. Goldstein Photography Watermark circa 2009
Weighing Watermarks
Everyone has their limit and one can only go so far to ruin their photography online under the guise of attribution, branding and limiting infringement. For some my evolution may be a spiral into madness or just bad taste. Everyones pain threshold in this area is different, but one always has to be true to themselves. A watermark should be practical, functional and aesthetically pleasing to the photographer. Watermarks are not one size fits all… by that I mean every photographer has a slightly different expectation to the purpose and outcome of placing their photography online. Ones watermark should be tailored to a specific expectation and purpose. A stock photographer may have a very different watermarking strategy compared to a strict fine art photographer. The best way to move forward with watermarks is to align an approach that meets your online marketing needs and to adapt. Things never stay the same for long, but bad user behavior certainly seems to persist in one form or fashion. With that being said in my next post I’ll explore “Marketing Through Infringed Photos with Watermarks“.
Technorati Tags: Photography, Copyright, Watermark, Watermarking
| Stay Connected with Jim | |||
 | Join Me On Twitter |  | Become a Fan on Facebook |
 | Listen to EXIF & Beyond |  | My Latest on YouTube |
[...] Watermarks: Evolution of a Watermark (Feb 24, 2009) [...]
Hey Jim,
Really enjoying this series as I’ve been evaluating my watermarking process and procedure lately.
I’m not sure if you are planning on covering it, but I’d be really be interested in how/if you go about looking for infringements of your photographs. Obviously if you are watermarking your photos as heavily as you are, it’s probably unnecessary, but I thought I’d ask.
Thanks,
Justin
[Reply]
Hi Jim, really enjoyed that. I also would be interested in how you have been handling your infringements. I didn’t know it was such a problem. I’m also interested in which program you use for watermarking, if not just on photoshop itself.
Thanks
Chris
[Reply]
Jim,
Thanks for sharing this information.
[Reply]
Thanks. I’ve recently had a few issues with some copyright infringement and I’m having to re-evaluate my watermarking practices.
[Reply]
This is a great series Jim and very ‘brave’ to show your earlier watermarks
I am going to update my own watermark to be more detailed in the copyright text – thanks for sharing your thoughts so freely.
Going slightly off topic, do you use any tools to search for copyright infringement?
[Reply]
Jim, thanks for posting this. It’s a very interesting walk through the evolution of your watermarking. I have a love/hate relationship with watermarking, too, and I’m still trying to find a balance I can be happy with.
[Reply]
Jim, could I copy your watermark style? Would that be infringing on your anti-infringement symbol? I really like the idea. I use the watermark on smugmug for my galleries, but I’m thinking of a manual one on some other specific shots. Thanks.
[Reply]
[...] a better understanding of My Journey with Photography Watermarks and how the Evolution of a Watermark has factored into my online marketing, I wanted to share how these efforts have translated in my [...]
Very interesting series so far. It’s interesting to see that I’m going down nearly the same exact road on watermarks. Pretty soon I’ll be back to the big ugly symbol over key parts of the photo I’m sure.
[Reply]
Thanks for taking the time to document your history with watermarks, in multiple articles even. I, too, have progressed through a similar path. I have had a handful of people complain to me about my watermark “ruining the photo.” Ironically, these have been the very same people that wanted to use my work without attribution or compensation. Thus, the purpose of the watermark was served.
Photoshop actions have been invaluable in my watermarking process. I am able to stamp hundreds of photos by the simple click of a couple of buttons.
bcj.
[Reply]
Jim,
I too have had a watermarking journey, driven by the outside world starting to notice my pictures via Flickr.
I started with a plain white text label bottom left of the picture, but this looked untidy, so I moved to a 50% opaque black footer with white text on it, but then I realised it was far too easy to crop the bottom 20 pixels out of a large image.
So now, I restrict Flickr uploads to max 1024px in any dimension, and both drop a footer with the copyright notice clear in white on semi-opaque black, and I stamp the copyright message in 10% opaque right across the middle (thank you PS action droplets from LR!).
This still feels like a compromise, in that I’m often ‘defacing’ the most interesting parts of a picture, but that’s where you’ve got to protect yourself from croppers…
Unfortunately, I don’t see what else there is to do if we’re to display our photos on the web?
[Reply]
[...] Watermarks: Evolution of a Watermark JMG-Galleries In this article, Jim shows us the evolution of his watermark and reveals the reasoning behind each one. Very interesting for those considering the addition of a watermark to their photos. [...]
Here are some answers I have been looking for. Enjoying your series and your work. Teri
[Reply]
Great series Jim, thanks for all the time and effort to put this together! I have been a strong believer in watermarking all my images displayed online since I started displaying them online. This was only reinforced for me recently when I saw a Fortune 500 CEO give a presentation which included a clearly watermarked image…
One thing to note, I noticed how up until your current watermark, you usually included the copyright date along with the copyright notice. Now you dropped the date. I’m assuming this is because when dealing with stock having the date in the watermark can artificially “date” the photo (a buyer might be turned off by knowing that the image is X years old…).
Curious if this is the reason you dropped the year or something else?
[Reply]
@Jim Poor Its an unfortunate aspect of posting images online. Ultimately the size and tact of a watermark is reflective of the photographers comfort level with having their work online. But ultimately… no risk, no reward.
-
@bcj. Lightroom and Photoshop have a couple of great mechanisms to make this easy. More on that soon.
-
@Chris Brown 1024px is large. I had been posting images no larger than 800px and now I’ve restricted the size of my current work to 500px. I’ve opted to do this because resize engines on Flickr and elsewhere will remove the metadata I embed. A 500px image doesn’t need to be resized for most photo sites. Something to consider beyond the watermark dilemma.
-
@Teri Glad the article has been helpful.
-
@latoga Actually it is more of a style versus function decision. The date really doesn’t hurt or help stock photos… as far as I can tell. I think the best practice is to include the year, but the most important aspect of a watermark is to inform an infringer they’re messing with protected work. A big copyright symbol does that nicely. Over the years I’ve not found detailed debate on including the year or not and I don’t believe it weakens an infringement claim by not having it. Of course all of this is just hot air if you haven’t registered your photos with the Library of Congress to perfect your copyright.
[Reply]
Interesting article!
I try to use watermarks also, but sometimes have trouble choosing a site/url to use since I have several
At the moment I have it in the corner, transparent. Thinking about making it more visible. I rather have a watermark and post large enough picture to enjoy it rather then make it very small.
[Reply]
Hi Jim,
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how did you design your watermark? Did you create it in photoshop, illustrator, or using something else? (wondering if it is a raster or vector image)
Thanks,
Rich
[Reply]
Thanks for the information Jim. A bought a batch watermark creator, but have vacillated on adding watermarks to my image. I have become more conscious, and concerned, about this issue since taking my site and blog live in the last month or so.
Best,
Matthew
[Reply]
I have a very contentious relationship with watermarking. My 3D artwork is designed specifically to be used as computer wallpaper, so I have to keep my watermark as innocuous as possible.
This unfortunately leads to copyright infringment, but it is as small price to pay for more people using your work.
Great post, BTW. I will have to read more.
[Reply]
I'm interested in an estimate of how much money you think you have lost through copyright infringement (i.e. not 'if they had bought it' but 'lost sales as a direct result'). I've asked a few photographers this and all of them could not think of a sale or revenue lost (i.e. copyright infringers would never 'pay' so you don't lose any money – had your photograph not been available, they would have gone elsewhere).. On the other hand, do you think that you may have lost sales (and time/money) because of 'ugly' copyright watermarks and small images?
My own conclusion was that I was unlikely to gain sales my marking my images and making them smaller but was likely to lose sales by having ugly, watermarked images… I understand that all situations are different and am not meaning to say “You're wrong” rather “how right are you for your situation?”
[Reply]
I can't help but think of the software piracy debates of the 80's and 90's when I read your question. There certainly is always a dimension to copyright infringement where some infringers would never pay for imagery no matter what. In this light the old claims by software companies that they were losing $XXX millions of dollars was a joke at least to me because I knew not every theft translated to a lost sale. The same is true with copyright infringement of photographs.
That being said there is the prospect of money on the table with each infringement. I can't speak to the law in the UK, but in the US damages can be obtained for copyright infringement and this is often used as leverage to get infringers to pay normal licensing fees versus pursing the matter in court.
The irony was that the week you replied to this post I went through the process of dealing with a large company using one of my photographs online with out consent or payment. We worked out a licensing arrangement and the issue was resolved. The point of this little story…
Asking how much money is lost is not the point. That is like asking how much money you've lost because you bought camera equipment. The proper question is how much money has it made you to offset any expenses. Staying in the black is what matters. I can tell you that my pursuit of certain infringement cases has yielded income that I would have otherwise missed out on.
One other aspect of intellectual property to consider is that protecting your IP is what allows you to continue to profit from it. In the US if you do not defend your IP it becomes increasingly difficult to claim protection of the law. This is especially true of Trademarks, but does extend to Copyright as well.
There is a wide spectrum of discussion on this topic to consider, but to answer your question your income from pursing copyright infringement is tied to the effort you put in to pursue it. Infringement of photographs is happening 24/7. In theory if you dealt with every instance with a heavy hand you could generate revenue, but in reality we never have time to pursue every instance of infringement. Prioritizing infringement cases is important in order to obtain revenue from sources that are most likely able to pay. In this sense the copyleft movement shields a lot of people these days because the bad seeds know they can hide under the guise of not knowing or thinking an image was licensed in a way it was not. Another angle is to leverage copyright infringement cases as introductions to create relationships that will later be profitable. Managing copyright infringement isn't always about getting revenue up front.
Given the wide spectrum of situations with copyright infringement, none will present themselves as a revenue opportunity if you don't provide a mechanism for people to find their way back to you or if you don't take the opportunity to leverage online tools to detect improper use of your work. It is this aspect of watermarks (branding through them) that that are often overlooked in the fog of copyright infringement lawsuit discussions.
I put the question back to you…
Is it more important to know the amount of losses from copyright infringement or more important to know how much revenue opportunity you're able to yield from copyright infringement?
[Reply]
As to losing revenue from the ugly watermark… the revenue lost if any would be marginal. If an image is in demand… its in demand and for those that want it they'll see past the watermark. Comfort with this is derived from knowing who your audience is.
Could I refine my watermark? yes.
Will I in the future? yes.
Is the watermark a turn off for every type of customer I'm trying to reach? no.
Does it turn off some? I'm sure
Of course tailoring presentation of ones work for your target audience is very important. It is for this reason I'm sure to revise my watermark and possibly how I present my work to certain audiences in the future. I think its unrealistic to treat each audience the exact same way, but of course that requires greater energy & time being expended.
[Reply]
Good points all but I would say that the copyright watermarks have obviously not done much to prevent copyright infringement. Would it not be better to put your contact details at the bottom of a picture (as per http://www.into-the-light.com) hence not reducing the visual impact of the images? (I'm presuming that the images that were copied were watermarked, if not I'd wonder why they weren't and if so I'd wonder what real effect they have on stopping people from using your pictures). In fact, if your pictures are unwatermarked at all then people are more likeley to use them and you can make more claims? (not suggesting this as a tactic in any way). I wonder what the main point of a water mark is? Is it just to cover your back regarding to defending your copyright? is it to make it difficult for people to use your pictures? Is it branding in case your pictures get 'lost' in the Internet?
In answer to your question I think profits from infringement are important and, if significant, you should make it easier for people to infringe as long as you can track the pictures (how do you track infringers? presumably using some of the internet services for virtual infringers and presumably you can't track real world cases so easily?).
Presumably anybody who is a dishonest infringer will strip any copyright, logos, etc from your pictures. Any body who is not dishonest would be informed just as easily using the footer copyright (non-damaging watermark).
[Reply]
The law as written here in the US requires that you make an effort to label a photo as copyrighted. That of course can be done in a variety of ways. There are numerous court precedents that note this. It's difficult to fight infringement if the infringer can claim “I didn't know who the copyright owner was.” or “I didn't know the image was copyrighted.”.
Again knowing who your audience is that you're selling to is key in how you watermark. Not too long ago the primary concern was use of photos in print, but the market is now demanding lower resolution images on the web. It doesn't take much of an image to be used online. An 800 pixel wide/tall photo can easily be cropped and used in a much smaller resolution web banner. Such banners can generate hundreds and up to thousands of dollars in licensing revenue. If you're aware of the licensing opportunities for web use then a larger watermark becomes more appealing. From a fine art perspective a large watermark is likely a huge turn off.
Ideally use of metadata is the cleanest way to present a photograph and have your contact/copyright info made available. The sad truth is that information is way too easy to be stripped either with a screencapture or manual effort in Photoshop. Stripping metadata is also tough to prove was intentional. Intentional infringement provides additional penalties that can be levied in the US legal system.
The purpose of my copyright articles on the blog about watermarking was to introduce others to the wide variety of reasons to watermark. Clearly there is the reason to label your work so any infringement cases face less uncertainty if pursued in court. There is also the benefit of branding. If you're concerned about web use then there is certainly the aspect of making it difficult to use.
The funny thing about your thoughts in your last paragraph is that you give people too much credit. There are a lot of people who should know about copyrights that do not. There is a lot of misinformation and misunderstandings. Photographers need to be educated and diligent in informing people to their rights… of course a soft approach is best to leverage infringement into opportunity. Don't assume people know better. They do not. This is particularly true as younger generations growing up with the mentality of “online content is free” obtain jobs in industries that traditionally license photography.
[Reply]
Hi Jim, I hope I don't come across as negative – I think for certain markets a 'complex' copyright watermark will cause real problems for people trying to copy pictures. I am surprised that people think that they can copy any picture from the internet at will though – that is shocking. I really like the article though – the thoughts behind appropriate watermarking are very interesting. thanks
[Reply]
I didn't take your comments as negative. I'm all for a healthy dose of cynicism. Everyone should challenge their beliefs (I'm no exception) in order to stay on top of things. Watermarks are a moving target whose purpose might fade over time as new technology develops.
It is unfortunate but there is an entire generation growing up with the belief that online content is free for them to do with what they want. Think about it… millions of people who know photography as being primarily an online phenomenon. Even music shopping is drastically different than it used to be. Buy it online vs a social experience in a record store or gallery. As such behaviors are changing to reflect their perceived intangible nature. There is an education component photographers must now reinforce in relation to perceived value of the medium. This is one reason why I started my annual blog project of “buying prints from your favorite photographer”.
[Reply]
I can't help but think of the software piracy debates of the 80's and 90's when I read your question. There certainly is always a dimension to copyright infringement where some infringers would never pay for imagery no matter what. In this light the old claims by software companies that they were losing $XXX millions of dollars was a joke at least to me because I knew not every theft translated to a lost sale. The same is true with copyright infringement of photographs.
That being said there is the prospect of money on the table with each infringement. I can't speak to the law in the UK, but in the US damages can be obtained for copyright infringement and this is often used as leverage to get infringers to pay normal licensing fees versus pursing the matter in court.
The irony was that the week you replied to this post I went through the process of dealing with a large company using one of my photographs online with out consent or payment. We worked out a licensing arrangement and the issue was resolved. The point of this little story…
Asking how much money is lost is not the point. That is like asking how much money you've lost because you bought camera equipment. The proper question is how much money has it made you to offset any expenses. Staying in the black is what matters. I can tell you that my pursuit of certain infringement cases has yielded income that I would have otherwise missed out on.
One other aspect of intellectual property to consider is that protecting your IP is what allows you to continue to profit from it. In the US if you do not defend your IP it becomes increasingly difficult to claim protection of the law. This is especially true of Trademarks, but does extend to Copyright as well.
There is a wide spectrum of discussion on this topic to consider, but to answer your question your income from pursing copyright infringement is tied to the effort you put in to pursue it. Infringement of photographs is happening 24/7. In theory if you dealt with every instance with a heavy hand you could generate revenue, but in reality we never have time to pursue every instance of infringement. Prioritizing infringement cases is important in order to obtain revenue from sources that are most likely able to pay. In this sense the copyleft movement shields a lot of people these days because the bad seeds know they can hide under the guise of not knowing or thinking an image was licensed in a way it was not. Another angle is to leverage copyright infringement cases as introductions to create relationships that will later be profitable. Managing copyright infringement isn't always about getting revenue up front.
Given the wide spectrum of situations with copyright infringement, none will present themselves as a revenue opportunity if you don't provide a mechanism for people to find their way back to you or if you don't take the opportunity to leverage online tools to detect improper use of your work. It is this aspect of watermarks (branding through them) that that are often overlooked in the fog of copyright infringement lawsuit discussions.
I put the question back to you…
Is it more important to know the amount of losses from copyright infringement or more important to know how much revenue opportunity you're able to yield from copyright infringement?
[Reply]
As to losing revenue from the ugly watermark… the revenue lost if any would be marginal. If an image is in demand… its in demand and for those that want it they'll see past the watermark. Comfort with this is derived from knowing who your audience is.
Could I refine my watermark? yes.
Will I in the future? yes.
Is the watermark a turn off for every type of customer I'm trying to reach? no.
Does it turn off some? I'm sure
Of course tailoring presentation of ones work for your target audience is very important. It is for this reason I'm sure to revise my watermark and possibly how I present my work to certain audiences in the future. I think its unrealistic to treat each audience the exact same way, but of course that requires greater energy & time being expended.
[Reply]
Good points all but I would say that the copyright watermarks have obviously not done much to prevent copyright infringement. Would it not be better to put your contact details at the bottom of a picture (as per http://www.into-the-light.com) hence not reducing the visual impact of the images? (I'm presuming that the images that were copied were watermarked, if not I'd wonder why they weren't and if so I'd wonder what real effect they have on stopping people from using your pictures). In fact, if your pictures are unwatermarked at all then people are more likeley to use them and you can make more claims? (not suggesting this as a tactic in any way). I wonder what the main point of a water mark is? Is it just to cover your back regarding to defending your copyright? is it to make it difficult for people to use your pictures? Is it branding in case your pictures get 'lost' in the Internet?
In answer to your question I think profits from infringement are important and, if significant, you should make it easier for people to infringe as long as you can track the pictures (how do you track infringers? presumably using some of the internet services for virtual infringers and presumably you can't track real world cases so easily?).
Presumably anybody who is a dishonest infringer will strip any copyright, logos, etc from your pictures. Any body who is not dishonest would be informed just as easily using the footer copyright (non-damaging watermark).
[Reply]
The law as written here in the US requires that you make an effort to label a photo as copyrighted. That of course can be done in a variety of ways. There are numerous court precedents that note this. It's difficult to fight infringement if the infringer can claim “I didn't know who the copyright owner was.” or “I didn't know the image was copyrighted.”.
Again knowing who your audience is that you're selling to is key in how you watermark. Not too long ago the primary concern was use of photos in print, but the market is now demanding lower resolution images on the web. It doesn't take much of an image to be used online. An 800 pixel wide/tall photo can easily be cropped and used in a much smaller resolution web banner. Even smaller resolution photos are prone to use as the trend of merging multiple photographs into one are pursued by designers. Such banners can generate hundreds and up to thousands of dollars in licensing revenue. If you're aware of the licensing opportunities for web use then a larger watermark becomes more appealing. From a fine art perspective a large watermark is likely a huge turn off.
Ideally use of metadata is the cleanest way to present a photograph and have your contact/copyright info made available. The sad truth is that information is way too easy to be stripped either with a screencapture or manual effort in Photoshop. Stripping metadata is also tough to prove was intentional. Intentional infringement provides additional penalties that can be levied in the US legal system.
The purpose of my copyright articles on the blog about watermarking was to introduce others to the wide variety of reasons to watermark. Clearly there is the reason to label your work so any infringement cases face less uncertainty if pursued in court. There is also the benefit of branding. If you're concerned about web use then there is certainly the aspect of making it difficult to use.
The funny thing about your thoughts in your last paragraph is that you give people too much credit. There are a lot of people who should know about copyrights that do not. There is a lot of misinformation and misunderstandings. Photographers need to be educated and diligent in informing people to their rights… of course a soft approach is best to leverage infringement into opportunity. Don't assume people know better. They do not. This is particularly true as younger generations growing up with the mentality of “online content is free” obtain jobs in industries that traditionally license photography.
[Reply]
Hi Jim, I hope I don't come across as negative – I think for certain markets a 'complex' copyright watermark will cause real problems for people trying to copy pictures. I am surprised that people think that they can copy any picture from the internet at will though – that is shocking. I really like the article though – the thoughts behind appropriate watermarking are very interesting. thanks
[Reply]
I didn't take your comments as negative. I'm all for a healthy dose of cynicism. Everyone should challenge their beliefs (I'm no exception) in order to stay on top of things. Watermarks are a moving target whose purpose might fade over time as new technology develops.
It is unfortunate but there is an entire generation growing up with the belief that online content is free for them to do with what they want. Think about it… millions of people who know photography as being primarily an online phenomenon. Even music shopping is drastically different than it used to be. Buy it online vs a social experience in a record store or gallery. As such behaviors are changing to reflect their perceived intangible nature. There is an education component photographers must now reinforce in relation to perceived value of the medium. This is one reason why I started my annual blog project of “buying prints from your favorite photographer”.
[Reply]
I know this post is almost a year old now, but I popped back here as I'm thinking about watermarking my own photos – well, I've decided that I will, but not sure how to go about doing it. I remembered this post and had to come back and re-read. Lots of good insight here, and I think I agree with your overall approach.
Thanks for the insight and wisdom.
[Reply]
Travis glad this article has proven to be timely for you. There is not a day I look at my work online and think “how sad is it that I have to put a watermark over my photo”. When you settle on a watermark let me know so I can take a look. While my watermark serves the purpose I intended I have to admit I'm already considering a new one. It might not be that long before I have an addendum to this post.
[Reply]